The fact is that we all die of something eventually. The high ranking causes are due to old age and the accumulated effect of unhealthy habits. We don't have a choice about getting old, but we can eat healthier, excersize, not smoke, etc. You don't have a choice about getting shot. Your level of health has little to do with surviving a bullet.

Another flaw factor is that guns serve no other purpose. Big Macs and Doritos provide calories and maybe some vitamins, even though they may be killing way more Americans than guns.

How far do we go with your great idea? Should people who own boats be required to pay for the Coast Guard? Should homosexuals bear the burden of AIDS research? Your argument is fallacious as society agree to share these costs. Just because you disagree with another's lifestyle gives you no right to abridge it. On the face of it, it would discourage less wealthy people from buying firearms while the wealthy would be little affected, therefore, more power would be concentrated in the hands of the rich than already exists. The gap would become even more obvious. The poor man would no longer have the means to protect himself, becoming vulnerable to both the state, which would be in a position to dictate policy, and criminals, who would simply ignore the "tax" . If you like autocracy, this is a good method.

The boat owner/coast guard and many other seemingly direct user/payer objections fall short for the same reazon I pointed out before for cars; society az a whole is benefiting from them. The coast guard helps defend the entire country from invasion, including the land lubbers in the middle of Idaho. Guns in the hands of private citizens have no general benefit. The stats prove this.

Thats a good point about wealthy people tho. It is something that would probably need to be considered in the details of any legislation.

However, I can rebut it now.

1. Rich people don't often have any motive to go on killing sprees. They don't need to hold up the Quiky Mart. They can live in low crime areas. So they are far less likely to fire a gun than middle class or poor people. In other words, even if they own guns, we aren't in much danger of being shot by them.

2. If the GIT were enacted, the cost of ownership would begin to rise quite rapidly as more people decided it wasnt worth it or got priced out. It would probably keep rising till only criminals and rich gun enthusiasts kept their guns, but the overall rate of incidents would start to fall. Eventually, as the proliferation drops, illegal ownership would become too expensive and actually using a gun too risky. Even rich people would hesitate to carry something that risks their fortune, especially if they weren't so likely to be attacked with guns.

3. They can already afford to outgun ordinary citizens. They can have a dozen body guards, each carrying multiple weapons, including machine guns. They can have armored vehicles with mounted 50 cal machine guns. They can also afford body armor, which reduces the effectiveness of your gun.

4. There aren't many rich people. The GIT is intended to end this rediculous level of proliferation. If there were only 1,000,000 people who could afford to own guns instead of 300,000,000, we'd all be way safer.

After our precious Dylan was killed in the senseless violence at Sandy Hook Elementary, our other son Jake asked us not to say Dylan's name aloud. The reminder of how quickly and violently his best friend had been snatched away was too painful and raw.Now, nearly 18 months later, I sometimes hear Jake talking to Dylan, just chatting to his brother quietly while he plays. I stop, steel myself, allow myself to feel the anger that Jake can no longer play with his brother, and then I remember that this is Jake's way of moving forward, of keeping Dylan's memory alive.I still mourn Dylan every day, all the time. But I also think about the kinds of adults Jake and other Newtown children are going to grow up to be. They've lived through the worst humanity has to offer – but they've also watched the world wrap its arms around us and seen the transformation that can come from unspeakable tragedy.You are part of that transformation. By supporting and getting involved with Sandy Hook Promise – like our groundbreaking new Promise Communities initiative – you are not only helping us honor Dylan and all the children lost to gun violence every day, but also helping protect those still with us. You're helping Sandy Hook Promise empower parents to make immediate change in their own communities and advocate for common sense reforms.Thank you for giving us this momentum. Thank you for giving us your love. And, most of all, thank you for giving us hope.We are making a difference – and together, we will create a safer world for all our children.With love,Nicole Hockley (Dylan's mom)

I am what is often called an out-of-the-box thinker. That's the foundation of my business as a prototype R&D professional. I usually come up with something nobody else has thought of, especially when it's a considered impossible by the supposed experts of the field.

I believe I have something for the gun problem.

To preface this, I must emphasize that I know there is no amount of money that can make up for the tragedy fire arm victims endure. To me, the whole situation is evil and stupid. If I were King of America, the NRA would be a hole in the ground and the 2nd amendment would be erased.

But, we have to deal with the current reality with our limited power, so I've come up with a less dramatic way of disassembling the gun culture in this country.

As I see it, guns are essentially a hobby for the average citizen. They are certainly not an essential part of living in the society we have built, like cars or money, so should not receive the same level of universal support. Yet that is exactly what's happening now - everybody pays some of the cost of this hobby whether they want to or not.

My solution is what I've called the Gun Incident Tax (GIT). It is alot like insurance in that the cost of incidents caused by guns are spread over all the willing participants. Somebody gets shot, runs up 500,000 in medical bills and everybody who owns a gun and all the lobbying organizations' monthly bill goes up a little. Somebody gets killed, whether accidentally, suicide, murder, self defense etc., and a set amount, say 5,000,000 is charged by the GIT system.

I know this sounds radical, but it is perfectly logical. Those who want to own guns andor promote them should be willing to pay the total cost rather than freeloading on the rest of us.

It doesn't matter if someone is in rural Colorado and never even fired their gun, their purchase of it helped enable the purchase of every bullet that killed or injured someone or just broke a window, simply by making the manufacture a financially viable proposition. Why should you and I have to help pay for them?

The way it would work for victims is that they would be fully compensated for all expenses including at least 100 dollars per hour for every minute the incident cost them. Families of the dead victims would get 5 million on top of that.

The way it is now, if you get out to your car on your way to work in the morning and find a bullet hole in your windshield, you are probably screwed. Good luck finding the perp. With the GIT system in place, you would not have to find out who did it. Just file a police report and the gun owners of America will cover the cost they helped generate.

The way it is now, the gun community has no direct motive to do anything about the trouble caused by thier hobby. The lobbying organizations are in fact aided by all the violence! The more incidents there are, the more threatened people feel and thus think they need to buy a gun.

The GIT will provide serious motivation to consider the real world effects of existing and proposed gun laws. The idea that 'this law will lower my GIT bill' will dominate their thinking.

I expect the NRA, ALEC and their pet congressmen will object strongly to this. So, to sweeten the deal for them (really, to expose the lie that guns supress crime) the GIT system will pay a bonus whenever a gun saves a life, stops a crime, recovers stolen property etc.

I came up with this in July 2012 and posted it in several forums. As you can see, it has gone nowhere yet. It needs a champion who can put it in front of people with connections and power.

JO 753 wrote:To preface this, I must emphasize that I know there is no amount of money that can make up for the tragedy fire arm victims endure. To me, the whole situation is evil and stupid. If I were King of America, the NRA would be a hole in the ground and the 2nd amendment would be erased. **

Nicole likely wouldn't have had to endure a tragedy as she did at Sandy Hook Elementary School if certain faculty had been armed and trained with firearms to go up against the shooter and put themselves between the shooter and the students. JO 753, as there is the 2nd Amendmentin place now, I would like you to please wear something conspicuous so that if are in dangerby a "bad guy with a gun," a legal gun owner will not waste his or her time trying to defend you.

JO 753 wrote:As I see it, guns are essentially a hobby for the average citizen. They are certainly not an essential part of living in the society we have built, like cars or money, so should not receive the same level of universal support.

Wrong. Guns/firearms certainly *are* an essential part of living in the society we have built! They are a tool for the owners as insurance, especially for the gun carriers, for self-defense and the defense for others. And they are tools for protection of property and self-defense of home invasions/burglaries.

** JO 753, from the ignorance in your statements about gun ownership in a broad sense, am I not correct that you have not attended an NRA meeting? That you do not understand the importance of the Amendments to the Constitution and how they place limits on the U.S. Government in relation to its citizens? And the importance of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for the U.S. citizens as one of their checks against the tyranny of the U.S. Government?

You have an inaccurately restricted definition of 'kill'. It is not limited to an intentional act by a living being.

if certain faculty had been armed and trained with firearms to go up against the shooter and put themselves between the shooter and the students.

That may have reduced the number of children killed. Or not, completely dependent on how events unfolded. There could have been more killed! And the continuous presence within all schools would increase the number of incidents occuring. Lets say there were always guns in all schools as the NRA would like. How many incidents would there have been due to this since lets say 1900?

I would like you to please wear something conspicuous so that if are in dangerby a "bad guy with a gun," a legal gun owner will not waste his or her time trying to defend you.

That would be an interesting situation. Would the legal gun owner get charged with some level of homicide for his depraved indifference?

Wrong. Guns/firearms certainly *are* an essential part of living in the society we have built!

So how have all the non-gun owners managed to survive? How is it that Japan, with it's total ban, not dissolved into kaos and anarchy?

They are a tool for the owners as insurance, especially for the gun carriers, for self-defense and the defense for others. And they are tools for protection of property and self-defense of home invasions/burglaries.

A tool with serious design flaws: 1. It's excessive power often defeats it's purpose. 2. It lacks the essential safety feature of restricting use to only shooting bad guys. 3. The noise it makes damages the hearing of everybody within a certain distance.

If drills had as many flaws, they wouldn't be on the market.

JO 753, from the ignorance in your statements about gun ownership in a broad sense, am I not correct that you have not attended an NRA meeting?

Yes.

That you do not understand the importance of the Amendments to the Constitution and how they place limits on the U.S. Government in relation to its citizens?

No.

And the importance of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for the U.S. citizens as one of their checks against the tyranny of the U.S. Government?

No.

I am 100% certain that if 'the U.S. Government' wanted to get me or you, it could. And being armed, your chances of surviving the encounter would be much lower than mine.

Another problem with the arguments being made with this 2nd amendment angle is that the bad guys with guns often are the guys who are fighting for their freedom from tyranny.

When a drug dealer is shooting at the cops chasing him, he is the embodiment of the 2nd amendment.

phobos rising wrote:They are a tool for the owners as insurance, especially for the gun carriers, for self-defense and the defense for others. And they are tools for protection of property and self-defense of home invasions/burglaries.

I've probably gone over this before here, but I'd like to present a great example of the problem with the self defense claim.

You have an inaccurately restricted definition of 'kill'. It is not limited to an intentional act by a living being. I don't have "an inaccurately restricted definition of 'kill'." I have a common sense, in context use of the word. The "who" pulling the trigger is doing the killing. The firearm is blameless. In gun deaths, people are not killed by guns, they are killed by the shooters.

if certain faculty had been armed and trained with firearms to go up against the shooter and put themselves between the shooter and the students.

That may have reduced the number of children killed. Or not, completely dependent on how events unfolded. There could have been more killed! <----- That is not a rational response.The logic is that the scenario that I (and many others have described) would have given chancesfor certain faculty to disable/kill the shooter in the matter of seconds before getting to most of,or all of, the students. The police were still minutes away.

And the continuous presence within all schools would increase the number of incidents occurring. No, gun-free zones are magnets are for the shooters. Schools wouldprominently display signs that there is an armed presence inside.

Lets say there were always guns in all schools as the NRA would like. How many incidents would there have been due to this since lets say 1900?There are too many variables in that hypothetical that couldn't be answered. Some high schools used to have rifle teams in them. Then there wouldn't have been this demonizing of guns in schools and the extent of boy-bashing that has happened. Schools would not have been gun-free zones. It sounds as if it may have been promising had it been the way you described.

Wrong. Guns/firearms certainly *are* an essential part of living in the society we have built!

So how have all the non-gun owners managed to survive? How is it that Japan, with it's total ban, not dissolved into kaos and anarchy?

What you stated didn't change anything. In the society "we have built" (read: America), theyare essential. Bringing up Japan and its ban is irrelevant, because that is not our society."

They are a tool for the owners as insurance, especially for the gun carriers, for self-defense and the defense for others. And they are tools for protection of property and self-defense of home invasions/burglaries.

A tool with serious design flaws: 1. It's excessive power often defeats it's purpose. It doesn't have "excessive power." That is just your own bias. Are you claiming that there is just one purpose for a gun?

2. It lacks the essential safety feature of restricting use to only shooting bad guys. You put up a false argument. There isn't such a safety feature. It is in the trainingof the person.

3. The noise it makes damages the hearing of everybody within a certain distance.There *are* silencers.

If drills had as many flaws, they wouldn't be on the market. Your "flaws" are contrived, so your analogy with a drill isn't there.

JO 753, from the ignorance in your statements about gun ownership in a broad sense, am I not correct that you have not attended an NRA meeting?

Yes.

Then if you will attend one of their meetings, maybe you will not spout off as much ignorance related to gun usage.

That you do not understand the importance of the Amendments to the Constitution and how they place limits on the U.S. Government in relation to its citizens?

No.

And the importance of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for the U.S. citizens as one of their checks against the tyranny of the U.S. Government?

No.

I am 100% certain that if 'the U.S. Government' wanted to get me or you, it could. Does this mean announced in advance or not? And could the phrase "me or you" also be generic for the average person in the U.S.?

And >>> being armed <<< , your chances of surviving the encounter would be much lower than mine.

And, just supposing I was armed, why do you presume that!? You would readily show yourselfafter having dropped all of your arms away from you, or you wouldn't have any arms in the first place?

The U.S. Government is supposed to work *for* the people, not the other way around.

Making guns more expensive through taxing is unlikely to deter anyone from wanting a gun, if anything it will increase their appeal. The wealthy will be more attracted to them as they like things that poor people can't have, and the poor will seek out black market weapons. Among the wealthy and the poor lurk the crazies. The poor misguided loons that for one deranged reason or another start shooting at people. One thing that intrigued me when I heard about one of the recent mass shootings in the US, was that afterwards, the sales of guns and membership to pro-gun groups sharply increased.

The problem of guns going off in the hands of crazy people isn't thecost or even availability of guns from shops, it is the ratio of guns to people. Sharp increases in purchases of guns following the reports of mass killings actually increases that ratio. Notice I wrote 'following reports of mass killings', not 'following mass killings'.

The media fuels the craziness. If there was no breaking news of mass killing after mass killing, there would be less mass killings.

But I'm sure you will say people NEED to know, don't they? But do they? I know I don't need to know about any more mass killings. If it happens in the suburb I live in, I will need to know at the time, so I don't get shot at, but I think the police would do a better job than the media then.

Petition your local radio, newspapers and television stations- no more news of killings please. We choose not to know. There should only be some kind of service that you actively have to subscribe to, to be in the killings information loop, if you really need to know and there is some way you can help. Otherwise, ask yourself, do you really need to know?

There is a spike in gun sales after a reported mass shooting, but the idea of not reporting it to reduce proliferation has some drawbacks.

1. Covering up the problem wont make it go away. If people stopped buying guns tomorow, we'd just stay at about the same level of proliferation.

2. Word would get out anyway and it would become obvious that a cover up was going on. That itself is likely to increase paranoia and increase sales.

3. We are at a very hi level of saturation now. There's probably some level at which more guns doesn't make much difference in the number of incidents. I don't know if we are there yet, but no spikes in sales doesn't mean there are no sales, so the proliferation will still be increasing.

4. People are very 'out of site, out of mind'. If you could keep mass shootings and the ordinary everyday shootings out of the news, the gun lobby would have an easier job getting restrictions repealed.

JO 753 wrote:You didn't present any real rebuttles. Denial of obvious lojik and repeating the >>> same old tired talking points <<< shows that you have nothing. No, nothing is wrong with my points. You can't argue against them. You're irrational to the point that you rely on emotionalism. You attack the points themselves by referring to them as"same old tired talking points."

*** > > > The U.S. Government is supposed to work *for* the people, not the other way around. < < <

Here's an idea for you. Go ask the mother of a dead 7 year old if the government is doing a good job, then get back to us here.You just changed the subject! The above *** is about the tyranny of the highest American politicians, who don't represent the economic desires/freedoms/etc. of its citizens.

And, no, not only is the mother of a dead 7-year-old a different subject, it's a false and dismissive argument to ask her whatever.